Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

[emperus]

More importantly:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

Clearly NBC, did know it was false, because they were the one editing it in the first place to make it false.

What information did NBC post that was false? The audio was of his words. They didn't move them out of sequence, in fact they just cut a portion of them out. They story didn't say he was a racist. Other media had audio of the 911 call. In fact anybody could have obtained and listened to audio of the full 911 call. Again, what claim did they make that was false?

 

[nehalem256]

What information did NBC post that was false? The audio was of his words. They didn't move them out of sequence, in fact they just cut a portion of them out. They story didn't say he was a racist. Other media had audio of the 911 call. In fact anybody could have obtained and listened to audio of the full 911 call. Again, what claim did they make that was false?

If NBC didn't do anything wrong why did they fire their employee?:hmm:

 

[Cozarkian]

They didn't move them out of sequence, in fact they just cut a portion of them out.

In the below excerpt, I didn't move any words out of sequence, I just cut a portion of them out:

Fourth, in investigating threats, the FBI also relies on what’s called national security letters, which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation. Now, these are cases in which it’s important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, isn’t tipped off. I’ve therefore directed the attorney general to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will provide data to the government.

The above makes it sound like Obama was giving the finger to the American public and granting greater authority for spying. What Obama really said is secrecy can be important, but he is taking steps to reduce secrecy so that companies can give the public more information when they provide data to the government when the need for secrecy has passed.

So, no, whether you used someone's actual words in the correct order should not be a test of defamation.

 

[smackababy]

What information did NBC post that was false? The audio was of his words. They didn't move them out of sequence, in fact they just cut a portion of them out. They story didn't say he was a racist. Other media had audio of the 911 call. In fact anybody could have obtained and listened to audio of the full 911 call. Again, what claim did they make that was false?

So, if I was to say "I don't hate black people." And NBC "only cut out a portion" and aired it as "I... hate black people" it would be okay? It changes the meaning entirely, which is exactly what removing the parts of the audio call did. Removing the "What race is he?" question, changes the meaning to imply GZ was describing a person of up to no good because of his race.

 

[FerrelGeek]

What information did NBC post that was false? The audio was of his words. They didn't move them out of sequence, in fact they just cut a portion of them out. They story didn't say he was a racist. Other media had audio of the 911 call. In fact anybody could have obtained and listened to audio of the full 911 call. Again, what claim did they make that was false?

Did someone put used kitty litter in your crack??? This has got to be the stupidest post in this whole thread. People got fired and the network had to issue an apology. Producers and editors are responsible for the content of the shows and to catch sh*t like this. It was gross negligence at best. It's a sad reflection on our society where hating someone justifies this kind of behavior. But then again, there was a thread a few months back where people pretty much admitted (without coming right out and saying so) that they hoped GZ would get street justice.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news/11759123/

I am no law expert and I agreed with the Zimmerman/Martin verdict, but to me, this seems like defamation of character. Is there any reason the court decided it isn't?

You and me both. I'm guessing the court accepted that it was an honest mistake, which boggles my mind.

This quote from the NBC attorney is nuts:

I really hope the judge wasn't persuaded by that, because the only reason Zimmerman is a "public figure" is because of the media portrayal (i.e. because the defamation was successful).

Honestly, this is one of those cases where the journalist that did the editing should be liable for whatever "damages" there were, not NBC, and honestly, losing their job should be punishment enough.

That is indeed nuts. Basically if you are accused of anything, you become a public figure and therefore fair game for any creative editing they want?

Zimmerman was a public figure almost immediately because of the trial, not due to NBC's statements. I think anyone trying to prove Zimmerman wasn't a public figure at the time of NBC's statements is going to have a very tough hill to climb.

The only way Zimmerman has a snowball's chance in hell IMO is if he's somehow able to convince a judge he wasn't a public figure. Otherwise, actual malice must be proven and that's almost impossible to do.

It's hard to see him ever winning anything on this.

So anyone on which NBC reports automatically becomes a public figure and therefore fair game? Or would you require two sources before open season?

 

[fskimospy]

So anyone on which NBC reports automatically becomes a public figure and therefore fair game? Or would you require two sources before open season?

Doesn't matter either way. He was being reported on by dozens of sources. If you would like to make the argument that a guy who is topping the biggest news websites and is headlining the nightly news isn't a public figure, well, uhmm, okay.

 

[werepossum]

Doesn't matter either way. He was being reported on by dozens of sources. If you would like to make the argument that a guy who is topping the biggest news websites and is headlining the nightly news isn't a public figure, well, uhmm, okay.

But he's a media creation. Doesn't seem right to allow the media extra latitude because he's a public figure when they made him so.

 

[smackababy]

But he's a media creation. Doesn't seem right to allow the media extra latitude because he's a public figure when they made him so.

The state he is filing in might recognize false light laws, and he could sue under that.

For example, in the United States, the person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.... For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth...

I don't think the "he was a public figure" is going to work on appeal.

 

[emperus]

If NBC didn't do anything wrong why did they fire their employee?:hmm:

You tell me why they fired their employee yet still won the lawsuit?

 

[dmcowen674]

Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news/11759123/

I am no law expert and I agreed with the Zimmerman/Martin verdict, but to me, this seems like defamation of character. Is there any reason the court decided it isn't?

Because NBC, ABC, FOX Et Al are Entertainment Organizations therefore protected by Free Speech.

They can lie to your face and do everyday 24/7 and it is perfectly OK.

 

[dmcowen674]

So, if I was to say "I don't hate black people." And NBC "only cut out a portion" and aired it as "I... hate black people" it would be okay?

Yes they can do that and that is exactly what they do 24/7 and protected by Free Speech because they are not reporting facts, they were labeled as Entertainment by the Supreme Court.

 

[emperus]

Did someone put used kitty litter in your crack??? This has got to be the stupidest post in this whole thread. People got fired and the network had to issue an apology. Producers and editors are responsible for the content of the shows and to catch sh*t like this. It was gross negligence at best. It's a sad reflection on our society where hating someone justifies this kind of behavior. But then again, there was a thread a few months back where people pretty much admitted (without coming right out and saying so) that they hoped GZ would get street justice.

I'm not even sure you are fully aware of the issue. It sounds like your still emotionally defending a psychopath.

He lost this case. It sounds like it was dismissed on motion. There was no libel or defamation. The edited quote sounded more like he was just giving a description. I didn't think it even made him sound racist. Again. everyone had the original 911 call to play in it's entirety. I'm not sure how you feel NBC of all networks had enough clout to defame him given that the actual unedited version was out in the ether, being played on other networks and even being played on NBC.

But again. ZImmermans team whipped you up to a frothing rage. And when most people supporting him have bailed (wife, attorney, friends). Here you are.. Good luck

 

[Cozarkian]

The edited quote sounded more like he was just giving a description. I didn't think it even made him sound racist.

That is a decent argument. Ultimately, if a jury doesn't think the editing made him sound racist, then there is no defamation.

Again. everyone had the original 911 call to play in it's entirety. I'm not sure how you feel NBC of all networks had enough clout to defame him given that the actual unedited version was out in the ether, being played on other networks and even being played on NBC.

That's not. If you publish a false, defaming statement, you can't defend yourself by stating the truth was provided by others. If anything, that would be better evidence that there was defamation.

 

[Oldgamer]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news/11759123/

I am no law expert and I agreed with the Zimmerman/Martin verdict, but to me, this seems like defamation of character. Is there any reason the court decided it isn't?

Hey look the media is owned and controlled by corporations, and corporations are people my friend, with religious rights, and guess what they are the most powerful entities in the country right now. Not surprising they were able to get this dismissed...lol

Edit: I am not for Zimmerman btw.. just playing devils advocate

 

[Attic]

So, if I was to say "I don't hate black people." And NBC "only cut out a portion" and aired it as "I... hate black people" it would be okay? It changes the meaning entirely, which is exactly what removing the parts of the audio call did. Removing the "What race is he?" question, changes the meaning to imply GZ was describing a person of up to no good because of his race.

Yea, spot on.


NBC did a lot of damage with their edits, they intentionally stoked a racist angle that they were creating out of nowhere, a racist angle which further ignited the country. I hope appeals wins a large sum. NBC has a long and sordid history of implementing the exact type of edit they pulled on the Zimmerman 911 call in other situations. If NBC can't figure out how to properly report then maybe a nice $$$ sum will remind them not to keep using selective edits to misrepresent people and organizations going forward.

Zimmerman was a public figure as a result of the media circus, not because of his profession or daily duties. He's still able to win defamation lawsuit. Now to see where appeals go.

 

[emperus]

That's not. If you publish a false, defaming statement, you can't defend yourself by stating the truth was provided by others. If anything, that would be better evidence that there was defamation.

What false defaming statement did they publish?

 

[Oyeve]

Who cares. This fat piece of shit doesn't deserve any more money.

 

[werepossum]

The state he is filing in might recognize false light laws, and he could sue under that.

I don't think the "he was a public figure" is going to work on appeal.

Maybe, but I'm guessing that his attorneys filed under every statute that might possibly apply. Emperus actually made a good argument: if the judge thinks that the NBC editing did not make him look racist - or at least no more racist than the other networks' bits - then she won't find damages, let alone malice. I'm guessing this holds up under appeal, even though it seems bizarro to me.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The Judge (Debra Nelson) that ruled this is the same one that was on the bench during Zimmerman's criminal trail. I would not be surprised if it's overturned by an appeals court

hahahahahaaaa....wawawaaa......too bad!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Zimmerman was a public figure as a result of the media circus, not because of his profession or daily duties. He's still able to win defamation lawsuit. Now to see where appeals go.

it will go nowhere........

 

[JackBurton]

I hope Zimmerman wins in appeals. NBC, along with other media outlets painted him as a racist and the moronic public went along with it. It's easy for them (media) to manipulate the general public though, because the American people are too dumb and lazy to do any real thinking on their own. Hopefully he wins in appeals and gets compensated for the defamation campaign that was launched against him.

 

[Sc0rp]

So, if I was to say "I don't hate black people." And NBC "only cut out a portion" and aired it as "I... hate black people" it would be okay? It changes the meaning entirely, which is exactly what removing the parts of the audio call did. Removing the "What race is he?" question, changes the meaning to imply GZ was describing a person of up to no good because of his race.

(Sorry, felt I needed to sign up to respond to this...)

We'll, that's **not** what NBC did. They focused on a couple of sound bites without changing what Zimmerman actually said. All they cut out is what the operator said. That part doesn't make him sound racist. The part where he refers to Martin as one of 'These A-holes' that 'always get away' made him sound like he formed some pretty bigoted opinions of Trayvon considering that he never saw Trayvon actually doing anything wrong. Then he left his truck and ran after Trayvon while calling him a 'f-ing punk or c**n'. He claims he said punk, but a lot of people say it sounds like c**n to them. It can be either, but it evinces that he had a lot of contempt for Trayvon as he ran after him.

There is no law that says the network has to play the whole tape, only that they don't change what Zimmerman actually said. They are not responsible for whatever opinions you want to assign to what he actually said.

Also, Zimmerman was a public figure because he thrust himself into the public controversy and actively engaged people long before NBC did their first story on him. He can't claim damages because people were already pissed at him and he was in hiding before NBC said word one about him. If anything, the subject of him possibly being racist cropped up when Frank taafe took it upon himself to speak on Zimmerman's behalf because Frank is a dyed in the wool bigot and he made Zimmerman seem racist by description. The fact that Zimmerman called 911 on minorities like 46 times (45 of which were false flags) didn't help and the fact that he harassed blacks in the neighborhood really didn't help.

Unless NBC is somehow responsible for the statements that he made about Trayvon being one of those a-holes that always get away and being a f-ing punk or c**n... Unless he can somehow show that NBC was so effective that they can ruin his reputation long before they ever air anything about him... Unless he can somehow erase his questionable past dealing with minorities in his own neighborhood, he has never had, nor ever will, have anything resembling a case against NBC.

 

[Sc0rp]

Yes they can do that and that is exactly what they do 24/7 and protected by Free Speech because they are not reporting facts, they were labeled as Entertainment by the Supreme Court.

Absolutely true. The judge said so in her judgement. What NBC did is protected by the 1st amendment and is quite common. People have tried suing networks in similar cases in the past and they have failed, no reason to believe that Zimmerman would magically succeed with a lawyer that has numerous sanctions for misconduct. To rule otherwise would be the same as showing Zimmerman special treatment beyond the law. Zimmerman should just suck it up and be happy he's not spending the next thirty years in prison. What happened here is that he thought he was invincible and let a lot of people that have no clue pump his head up to the point that he thinks he can take on a major network with an army of lawyers when he doesn't really have a case.

 

[Venix]

We'll, that's **not** what NBC did. They focused on a couple of sound bites without changing what Zimmerman actually said. All they cut out is what the operator said.

Did you not read the article?

Zimmerman: "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about."

911 dispatcher: "OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?"

Zimmerman: "He looks black."

NBC edit: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."

Do you seriously not understand the immense difference in meaning between those statements?

NBC's conduct was abhorrent, and no amount of alleged wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part will change that. Is it really that difficult to dislike both Zimmerman and the lying shitheads who intentionally attempted to mislead the public?

The fact that Zimmerman called 911 on minorities like 46 times (45 of which were false flags)

In fact, only six of his calls were about suspicious black males, including the one about Trayvon Martin. The "46 calls" nonsense is yet another media attempt to mislead stupid people, much like the recent "74 school shootings since 2012" garbage.

Zimmerman's 46 911 and non-emergency police calls over an 8-year period include such horrors as:

"Pot hole in the road” … “it is deep and can cause damage to vehicles”
“Aggressive white and brown pitbull” sitting outside Zimmerman’s home
Fire alarm going off
Pothole “that is blocking the road”
Patrol request between March 13 and March 22
Children “running and playing in the street”
Zimmerman requested an officer meet him regarding a pit bull in his garage
Zimmerman was out of town and a motion alarm he monitors himself went off
Zimmerman reports “trash in roadway”

THAT FILTHY WHITE HISPANIC RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!